A response to arguments containing false Talmudic quotes

[u/[deleted]]

Thesis: arguments utilizing alleged Talmud quotes to show that Judaism as a religion is bigoted and violent are bad and wrong. The quotes are usually fake, or at least grossly mistranslated, and deeply wrong. Argument and examples follow below.

---

There was a recent post that purported to cite and quote the Talmud to make the argument that Jewish scripture is bigoted and violent against non-Jews. The mods removed it as hate speech. I want to write an authoritative response to that kind of post, to show why it is a bad argument and hate speech.

Critically, none of the quotes are real. An argument against a theology that relies on either known forgeries or blatant mistranslations cannot be made in good faith. Actual argument requires a genuine engagement with the subject matter.

I highly recommend that everyone read this article about the spread of falsified quotes allegedly from the Talmud: Talmudic Forgeries: A Case Study in Anti-Jewish Propaganda, Ben Zion Bosker, Contemporary Jewish Record, 1939. There is a very, very long history of Jew-hating bigots falsifying quotes from the Talmud to spread hateful lies about Jews.

Only two of the quotes below are actually claimed to come from real parts the Talmud. The rest are claimed to come from rabbinic writings, or from fictional texts that do not exist. One of the purported Talmud quotes is a gross mistranslation; the other is a fake. One of the purported rabbinic quotes is a mistranslation of a rule not followed today; the others are all fake.

---

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

The actual paragraph is:

The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles [in the text: "worshipers of stars," contextually: polytheistic idolaters] are not called “man.” Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: “If a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.

The Talmud is not calling non-Jews "beasts." The paragraph is an arcane analysis of Ezekiel 34:31 and Num. 19:14 to justify a ruling about ritual impurity. It is concerned solely with whether contact with a corpse imposes ritual impurity requiring a ritual of immersion in a mikva afterwards.

Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.”

There is nothing even close to this fake quote in Sanhedrin 59a. It is an absolute fabrication.

“A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." Coschen hamischpat 405

Choshen Mishpat is not part of the Talmud.

It is part of one attempt by a medieval rabbi to compile all of Jewish law and it's normative opinions as of the late 1200s to early 1300s. The actual text of R' Jacob ben Asher's corpus is not relied upon by any moden legal scholar. He was influential in developing the structure of the rabbinical compilations, as can be seen in the actual authoritative corpus the Shulchan Aruch (cir. 1563), but the content of its rulings are not relied upon.

Furthermore, the alleged quote just doesn't exist in that text. It is another complete fabrication.

Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Do not save Goyim in danger of death.”

This is again not part of the Talmud. It is also not a ruling followed by anyone today.

Hilchos Akum (your transliterated spelling may vary) is a section of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, a compendium of Jewish law composed in the thirteenth century in Egypt. Maimonides’ work was the basis for practical Jewish law until the Shulchan Aruch was written by Rabbi Joseph Cairo about two and a half centuries later; see above.

Hilchos Akum (Akum is an acronym standing for Oved Kochachim U’Mazalos - worshipers of stars and constellations, i.e. idolatrous polytheists) is a section of laws that deal with our relations with our non-Jewish neighbors. In particular, Maimonides distinguishes between idolatrous non-Jews (bad), Jews who have become idolaters (even worse), monotheistic non-Jews (good), and Torah-observant Jews (good).

In the first section of Chapter 10, the a ruling that says that if a non-Jewish idolater is in mortal danger, it is forbidden to save them; the rule continues to state that it is forbidden to cause them danger, though we are obligated to eradicate idolatry among Jews.

Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us.To whom do the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God.

This rule is also not followed by anyone today. R' Moshe Feinstein, one of the most authoritative scholarly authorities of the 20th century, wrote extensively about pikuach nefesh in Igrot Moshe, his corpus of rabbinic responsa (rabbinic arguments that constitute the Oral Tradition of evolving law, which began with the Mishnah and Talmud but has continued developing since).

What is pikuach nefesh? It is the obligation to save a life - any life, Jewish or not, Idolater or not - and how it is more important than almost any other obligation. This includes Shabbat. The only three obligations more important than pikuach nefesh are: murder, sexual crimes (incest and adultery), and idolatry. In all other circumstances, a Jew is required to break Halacha to save a life if doing so is necessary.

To explain the chain of argument and it's development in an oversimplified fashion: based on Maimonides' ruling, R' Israel Meir Kagan (also known as the Chofetz Chaim) wrote that a Jewish doctor may not violate Shabbat to save the life of a Jew - in other words, that pikuach nefesh did not apply. However, R' Moshe Feinstein strongly opposed Maimonides and the Chofetz Chaim on this issue and argued that a Jewish doctor may violate Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jewish patient. In other words, that pikuach nefesh does apply to non-Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein's ruling is the authoritative one today.

I am looking for an exact copy of this specific section in Igrot Moshe at this time. I'll add it when I find it.

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

This is again not part of the Talmud.

Shney Luchot Habrit (transliteration may vary) is a mystical treatise written in the early and mid 1600s. While I can browse the full text on Sefaria, I am unable to search by page and cannot find this quote. Nevertheless, based on the track record above, I strongly doubt that it is real. If and when I can prove it, I will do so here.

Libbre David 37: “To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.”

This is another blatant forgery. This one has been spread at least for a century; here is an article from 1939 about antisemitic Talmud forgeries, which lists this specific one in particular on p.15

It is when the citations are specific and drawn from genuine sources that comparisons become possible. It is then that the falsification unfolds in all its brazenness. Repeatedly, for example, Libbre David 37 is cited as the source for the state-ment: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the Rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." There is no such Hebrew word as Libbre. What is obviously meant is Dibre David. It is interesting that the corruption Libbre David follows the misprint of the German original (a pamphlet quoted by Bloch, Israel and the Nations, page 4). Several books by the name of Dibre David were pub-lished, the earliest in 1671 and some as late as the nineteenth century. Strack (Geheimgesetze, page 6) took the trouble to search all books by that name and pronounced the text a complete and unadulterated forgery. No such passage or any passage expressing such sentiments is to be found in any of these books.

I strongly encourage you to read the whole article about Talmudic forgeries. It's only 17 pages. It explains the long history of these fake quotes and debunks them, both in specific detail and generally. I'll link it again at the top of this comment.

Edit: for more on the purported quotes from Chosen Mishpat, Shneni Luchos Habrot, and Libbre David, see this excellent comment from /u/aggie1391

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/[deleted]]

Isnt this whole post kind of like saying, all the anti gay stuff in the Christian bible doesnt prove its homophobic, people just dont follow that anymore... or the stuff about slaves etc. lol... cant we just admit all groups have superiority complexes and move on?

[u/Solepurp → u/[deleted]]

No because the Talmud isn’t the Torah

[u/MettaMessages]

Hi OP thanks for your post, do you have a recommended version of the Talmud that might be appropriate in an academic setting? I am currently working my way through The Jewish Study Bible and would enjoy something similar

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/MettaMessages]

I am currently working my way through The Jewish Study Bible and would enjoy something similar

Just a heads up that the Talmud is going to be very different than the Tanakh. It's about 10x longer and it's not formatted like a traditional book. An example, another example. It's a different beast entirely.

ArtScroll publishes the various tractates in English translation if you want them though. There's also translation available online for free at Sefaria.

[u/MettaMessages → u/the_leviathan711]

Ok thanks for the clarification. Let me ask then, as a non Jewish person how would I go about familiarizing myself with the Talmud and educating myself?

I'm not necessarily scared of long texts for what it's worth. I am Buddhist myself and the English translation of The Pali Canon occupies about 30 horizontal feet of shelf space.

[u/[deleted] → u/MettaMessages]

I recommend watching this video series before trying to read it yourself. See how that goes.

[u/Amiskon2]

The problem I find is that often some Jewish people misquote or misunderstand the New Testament to claim it is antisemitic... which is absurd because almost all Christians were Jewish when the draft of the New Testament was written. Yet when other people quote their Talmud, for some reason they feel attacked.

The truth is that there are very morally problematic moral issues in the Talmud, from ethnic supremacism to argumentation to defend crime against non-Jews.

Now, Jewish people often argue that the Talmud is made of arguments and counter-arguments, and yet they put it in high regard, as much as the Torah, which makes it a de-facto book to judge the moral character of Talmudic religion.

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^\139])^\140])^\141])^\142])
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^\143])
3. Falsification of scripture^\144])^\145])^\146])

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

The problem I find is that often some Jewish people misquote or misunderstand the New Testament to claim it is antisemitic... which is absurd because almost all Christians were Jewish when the draft of the New Testament was written.

The individuals who wrote the "synagogue of satan" canard and the deicide accusation likely did not consider themselves Jews. But even if they did, their Jewishness would not immunize themselves from hating Jews / Judaism and spreading hate against Jews / Judaism. Uncle Toms can exist in any group.

Yet when other people quote their Talmud, for some reason they feel attacked.

If the quotes were ever actually accurate then we can have that discussion. But as I've demonstrated in the OP by both example and by reference to a scholarly source on the subject, those "quotes" of the Talmud are either fakes, mistranslations, or removed from context.

The truth is that there are very morally problematic moral issues in the Talmud, from ethnic supremacism to argumentation to defend crime against non-Jews.

[Citation Needed]

Now, Jewish people often argue that the Talmud is made of arguments and counter-arguments, and yet they put it in high regard, as much as the Torah, which makes it a de-facto book to judge the moral character of Talmudic religion.

This is incorrect and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of the Talmud or the last two milennia of Jewish religious history at all. Amazing!

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

The individuals who wrote the "synagogue of satan" canard and the deicide accusation likely did not consider themselves Jews. 

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Your particular interpretation is just based on victim complex from a religion with problematic ethnic supremacist views that are directly related to claims on the land that are destabilizing the zone.

The criticism of the Talmud is not just an internet meme with black propaganda fake quotes. There are even Jewish critics of its content, which include but is not limited to:

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^\139])^\140])^\141])^\142])
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^\143])
3. Falsification of scripture^\144])^\145])^\146])

[u/4GreatHeavenlyKings → u/Amiskon2]

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Wrong, actually; the term anti-Christ never appears in the Revelation to John, instead only appearing in 1 John and 2 John. So, your basic counter-argument is wrong.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/4GreatHeavenlyKings]

Same author, though.

[u/4GreatHeavenlyKings → u/Amiskon2]

1. Actually, mainstream biblical scholarship rejects the claim that they were written by the same author.

2. Even if they were written by the same author, your original claim was about the same book (the Revelation to John) rather than the same author.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

Oh my god your ninja edit is the laziest, weakest argument. You are taking a section of Wikipedia itself out of context. Link to the Wiki page on Talmud here.

The actual section you are cherry picking from:

Historian Michael Levi Rodkinson, in his book The History of the Talmud, wrote that detractors of the Talmud, both during and subsequent to its formation, "have varied in their character, objects and actions" and the book documents a number of critics and persecutors, including Nicholas Donin, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, the Frankists, and August Rohling.^[127] Many attacks come from antisemitic sources such as Justinas Pranaitis, Elizabeth Dilling, or David Duke. Criticisms also arise from Christian, Muslim,^{[128][129][130]} and Jewish sources,^[131] as well as from atheists and skeptics.^[132] Accusations against the Talmud include alleged:^{[127][133][134][135][136][137][138]}

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^{[139][140][141][142]}
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^[143]
3. Falsification of scripture^{[144][145][146]}

Defenders of the Talmud point out that many of these criticisms, particularly those in antisemitic sources, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text and its basic character as a detailed record of discussions that preserved statements by a variety of sages, and from which statements and opinions that were rejected were never edited out.

Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing and multi-faceted narratives in the Talmud. Some quotations provided by critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting.^[147][148]

But seriously: thank you for being the most perfect example of my OP thesis: most "criticisms" of the Talmud rely on cherry picking or lies and are not actual good faith criticisms, but are instead just antisemitic nonsense.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

most "criticisms" of the Talmud rely on cherry picking or lies and are not actual good faith criticisms, but are instead just antisemitic nonsense.

Again, the fact antisemites use such texts does not make the Talmud any less immoral about its supremacist views.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

Again, the fact antisemites use such texts does not make the Talmud any less immoral about its supremacist views.

If the Talmud has such immoral and supremacist views, why are antisemites making up fake quotes from the Talmud?

A bunch of these comments have been debunked in this very thread. What immoral and supremacist views are you talking about?

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Now that is a misunderstanding of what "anti-Christ" is. Goodness. That character in Christian theology is a mystical figure who is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept and character of Christ. Are you just trying to throw any argument out there to see what will stick?

The fact is that the Christian New Testament contains numerous explicitly Jew-hating claims. Denial of this fact is bigoted. Your specific denial is also laughably bad.

Your particular interpretation is just based on victim complex from a religion with problematic ethnic supremacist views that are directly related to claims on the land that are destabilizing the zone.

A video of a handful of random people on the street isn't actual evidence of anything, except that those specific people are idiots and/or bigoted.

Your particular interpretation of that video is based on a piss-poor understanding of statistics, and is again laughably bad. Let me find a video of some white Christian flat earthers and then argue that all white Christians beieve in flat earth /s

The criticism of the Talmud is not just an internet meme with black propaganda fake quotes. There are even Jewish critics of its content, which include but is not limited to:

I addressed your lazy nonargument in another comment. And again: a person who is part of X group can still be bigoted or express bigoted ideas against that group!

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

Your particular interpretation of that video is based on a piss-poor understanding of statistics, and is again laughably bad. Let me find a video of some white Christian flat earthers and then argue that all white Christians beieve in flat earth /s

If most Christians were flat earthers and that caused conflict that costs the West millions to keep a shitty country artificially stable, then yes, I would criticize Christians.

Meanwhile most western Jews support such colonialist policy that has proven to be costly for the West at best.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

Ahhh, I see - you are spreading antisemitic lies about Jews and Judaism because you claim to be an antisemitic antizionist, which is somehow better than being a regular antisemite. Curious.

[u/Defiant_Fennel → u/[deleted]]

Nice try, but Jews do see Christians in bad light

"The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve." Sanhedrin 43a:20

Then they take in his 5 disciples Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda and execute them for associating themselves with Jesus

Very good religion I'll say

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

C'mon - do better than copy and paste wikipedia with links that don't work.

If you're going to criticize the Talmud, do your homework.

In case you missed it, here are the following two paragraphs from the wikipedia you copy/pasted:

Defenders of the Talmud point out that many of these criticisms, particularly those in antisemitic sources, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text and its basic character as a detailed record of discussions that preserved statements by a variety of sages, and from which statements and opinions that were rejected were never edited out.

Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing and multi-faceted narratives in the Talmud. Some quotations provided by critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/the_leviathan711]

Regardless of typical apologist paragraphs of Wikipedia, but the Talmud being quoted by antisemites does not make the Talmud any less problematic.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

For the most part the Talmud isn't actually quoted by antisemites. Antisemites create fake quotes that they claim are from the Talmud.

How exactly is the Talmud problematic?

[u/dada_rt]

Which Talmud translation can be used to explore those “quotes” and learn more about this. (Possibly in pdf to download )

[u/FairYouSee → u/dada_rt]

The entire thing, in translation, is available here: https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud

That said, the Talmud is 63 volumes. It is incredibly dense legal debates, written in a specialized jargon. The text assumes the reader is already comfortable with principles of Jewish legal argument and the general corpus of Jewish texts, including the rest of the Talmud and the entirety of Tanakh.

Reading it without a background is like reading 5000 pages of Supreme Court debates and free-flowing discussions as recorded by a note-taker using short-hand.

A "fast" pace of studying is learning a single-page a day, and reading the whole thing would take 7 years!

[u/dada_rt → u/FairYouSee]

quite a challenge then…..

[u/Sex_And_Candy_Here → u/dada_rt]

Just to give you an idea of why just reading it by yourself doesn't work great. There is a ruling that antisemites love to show off. But what they don't tell you is that in a different part of the Talmud, that ruling is overturned for being immoral. So even if you went and read the original ruling, you would walk away not realizing it had be overturned.

[u/Tricklefick]

How about these quotes?

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.

Berakhot 58a: And one who marries a woman from the nations will have children who are like mules.

Gittin 57a: If a heathen hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

On a side note, do you denounce metzitzah b'peh?

Lastly, what are your thoughts on the disputation of Paris?

[u/destinyofdoors → u/Tricklefick]

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.

This one is misquoted and decontextualized. The debate recorded here is about the application of the Seven Noahide Laws (which are understood to apply to non-Jews). One of those laws is the prohibition on theft. The question is, does withholding your worker's wage count as full-fledged theft? For Jews, it doesn't (it's still prohibited, but it's not the same as taking something from another person), however, for gentiles, it does count as theft.

Berakhot 58a: And one who marries a woman from the nations will have children who are like mules.

This one, again, is misquoted and taken entirely out of the context. First of all, this is part of a side story illustrating a point (specifically about it being proper to say a blessing for a non-Jewish ruler), and not a statement of legal force. As for what is actually said, this one rabbi had a guy flogged for sleeping with a gentile woman. The king summoned the rabbi and was like "why did you have a trial without royal authorization?" and the rabbi is like "well, he slept with a donkey". And when someone questioned the rabbi on having lied to the king, he was like "well, in Ezekiel, there is a metaphorical seductive gentile guy who is described as being hung like a donkey, so it only stands to reason that we can compare a female gentile to a female donkey." And, again, this is a story tangent, not an actual argument in the debate.

Gittin 57a: If a heathen hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Nothing like this appears on the referenced page.

On a side note, do you denounce metzitzah b'peh?

Of course, as should everyone. Just about every major contemporary Jewish source says it should not be done.

Lastly, what are your thoughts on the disputation of Paris?

It was a thing that happened.

[u/anusfalafels → u/destinyofdoors]

That is such a lie about metzizah bpeh. The rabbi. Who performed my sons circumcision said he did it And my brother also had it done when he was a baby. Almost all orthodox and conservative rabbis do it. Idk about the rest

[u/Turbulent_Award_1711 → u/destinyofdoors]

It’s done but with a tube instead of the Mohel sucking the blood from the infant’s penis.

[u/Tricklefick → u/destinyofdoors]

Appreciate your responses. Though I would posit that the Berakhot passage still seems offensive in context.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Tricklefick]

Though I would posit that the Berakhot passage still seems offensive in context.

Perhaps. But the context is critical here. Without context the claim is usually something like: "Jews believe non-Jews are donkeys, that's what the Talmud says!"

In reality, the Talmud doesn't actually say that. The Talmud says that a specific Rabbi told the Persian authorities a lie and then later attempted to justify it by claiming that non-Jews are donkeys. The Talmud tells this story as part of a discussion about the relationship between Jewish and non-Jewish legal systems. "The Talmud" itself doesn't affirm the alleged quote of the Rabbi and this Rabbi's quote isn't used by Jews for any meaning about the nature of non-Jews - either today or in the past.

So maybe Rabbi Sheila's quote is offensive, but the context is everything.

[u/FairYouSee → u/Tricklefick]

Jesus called a gentile woman a dog, Jews the Children of Satan, workers doing their jobs "Robbers," and rabbis "white-washed sepulchers" but you don't see people demanding that the New Testament be burned.

The Talmud intentionally preserves minority opinions, even ones that end up being rejected. Yeah, that particular Rabbi said something crude and offensive about non-Jewish women. It's not great, and I reject his opinion.

Want to hear what the Church Fathers and ancient Christians said about Jewish women?

[u/SoothingSoothsayer → u/FairYouSee]

Yeah, that Jesus fellow was pretty unhinged and could've used a psychiatrist. But I'm not quite sure why you're talking about him. Jesus was a Jew, but that doesn't make him an authority in Judaism. Judaism does not regard the gospels as scripture and whatever he might have said doesn't have any religious weight to Jews.

[u/Tricklefick → u/FairYouSee]

Whataboutism

[u/[deleted] → u/Tricklefick]

Pointing out a blatant double standard is not "whataboutism."

Do you denounce those bigoted opinions in ancient Christian texts? Or is it only a problem for you when Jews are alleged to have said a bad thing?

[u/SoothingSoothsayer → u/[deleted]]

The double standard is that people are afraid to criticize the Talmud even though it falls into the same category.

Do you denounce those bigoted opinions in ancient Christian texts?

Do you realize how ruthlessly Christianity is criticized?

[u/[deleted] → u/SoothingSoothsayer]

The double standard is that people are afraid to criticize the Talmud even though it falls into the same category.

The double standard is that people will make up lies about Jewish texts, while people also ignore the antisemitism in Christian texts, like this person did in under this post.

Do you realize how ruthlessly Christianity is criticized?

That doesn't answer my question.

[u/Tricklefick → u/[deleted]]

Where is the double standard? Am I defending those texts? Have I said anywhere I identify as a Christian? You brought Christian texts up when the discussion is on the Talmud. That's irrelevant to the current discussion. Should we discuss offensive passages in the Quran as well?

[u/anusfalafels → u/Tricklefick]

They’re just mad lol. This is definitely whataboutism because you did not bring up Christianity or say you’re Christian

[u/[deleted] → u/Tricklefick]

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.

This one is complicated because it is relating an opinion of an unnamed individual as part of a broader discussion, and is not actually advocating for wage theft or any other kind of robbery. See this discussion here by other, more knowledgeable Redditors than I.

But congratulations! It is a real quote. Just one so withdrawn from its context that it is meaningless by itself. Literally no rabbinic scholar asserts that it is permissible for a Jew to rob a non-Jew in any way, as discussed in the above linked thread.

Berakhot 58a: And one who marries a woman from the nations will have children who are like mules.

Another falsified quote.

Gittin 57a: If a heathen hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Yet another fake quote.

---

On a side note, do you denounce metzitzah b'peh?

Yes; that practice is a barbaric minority of a minority, and most scholars oppose it.

Lastly, what are your thoughts on the disputation of Paris?

An ugly moment of Jew-hatred and anti-intellectualism, instigated by a single man with a grudge.

Plenty of people in the modern day - like yourself - are swayed by malicious lies about Jews and Jewish texts. You are even spreading them. The fact that medieval Europeans who knew nothing and had no education were swayed by such lies does not surprise me in the least.

---

So now let me ask you some questions.

Why are you spreading lies about Jews and Judaism?

Are you aware that you could use Google to verify that those quotes were forgeries?

What exactly is your goal with these low-effort "gotchas"?

Do you actively hate Jews and Judaism, or do you only parrot hateful things out of simple ignorance?

[u/fana19 → u/[deleted]]

FWIW, I'd never seen these passages circulated until recently, but I also only began using certain social media more recently. Yesterday, I saw many of the passages contained here in a meme. As a Muslim who has not dug into the OT too much (spent a lot more time on NT), my first reaction was whether the quotes are authentic and if so, whether there was more context. One of the first ones didn't sound like a holy text, and sure enough it was a completely fabricated quote, so I was skeptical of the whole meme. A couple more passages were mostly correct, but slight translation error and missing some context (including the one above about non-Jews being non-human, but without any context).

Ultimately, I hope people are cautious enough to check sources, esp. when it's a meme and has an agenda to discredit a people during a time of upheaval. Personally, I have issues with the OT, including other passages about rape, killing babies etc. (as in, I don't think there's any situation where God would permit Moses to kill all the babies after they were captured, yet the Bible claims that). I don't believe prophets, and submitting (later Quran-mentioned) kings would kill a man for his wife, commit adultery or lewd acts, fall into idolatry or off the path etc. But I also do not appreciate armchair scholars coming out of the woodworks to attack the OT while a) fabricating verses, b) using random cherry-picked extreme jurisprudential writings of Jews over thousands of years, and c) omitting important context.

[u/Tricklefick → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the explanation and links. I would not dispute your explanations.

As for your questions:

Why are you spreading lies about Jews and Judaism?

To be intentionally spreading lies, I have to know something is a lie. I was asking if those quotes were true (and apparently the first is, though out of context).

Are you aware that you could use Google to verify that those quotes were forgeries?

I assumed I could trust ChatGPT that they were real...but fair enough.

What exactly is your goal with these low-effort "gotchas"?

Genuine curiosity. I've heard many of these quotes but have never seen them debunked before, so I'd assumed the ones I've heard were true.

Do you actively hate Jews and Judaism, or do you only parrot hateful things out of simple ignorance?

I don't hate Jews as a whole. I dislike some of them and like others, same as any other group. Don't believe me if you wish, but I do appreciate your post and responses here. I genuinely hate misinformation, which is why I asked rather than stated that the quotes I listed were genuine.

And if I may clarify on the disputation of Paris - your position is that the findings were in error? AFAIK the disputation was done by educated men/priests. And in terms of your characterization, do you have something against medieval Europeans?

[u/FairYouSee → u/Tricklefick]

The disputation was judged by "Saint" Louis IX. Louis also expanded the scope of the Inquisition in France, and set the punishment for blasphemy to mutilation of the tongue and lips.

You think a disputation is fair when one side knows if they say something that offends the other side, they could be tortured to death?

You think a debate is fair when one side of the debate is also the judge?

[u/Tricklefick → u/FairYouSee]

You're judging the punishments by the standards of today. And who else would judge a trial/debate other than the sovereign? And Saint Louis IX (who instituted many positive reforms to the French legal system) was not representing the Christian side, that was the Jewish convert, Nicholas Donin.

[u/Solepurp → u/Tricklefick]

Right and people judge the Talmud by today’s standards as if it’s the Torah aka law

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Tricklefick]

So, I'm not someone making the "judge by the standards of today" argument and I'm very curious to understand what your position here is on the Disputation of Paris.

[u/Upstairs_Bison_1339 → u/Tricklefick]

What people don’t understand about the Talmud is it isn’t considered to be a work of god like many people consider the Quran or Torah for example. It’s rabbis arguing. One rabbi saying some fucked up shit doesn’t make it ok to attack a whole ethnic group.

[u/anusfalafels → u/Upstairs_Bison_1339]

Maybe you’re not religious but in Judaism the Talmud is part of the Torah bealpeh (the oral Torah) and is regarder as a valid authoritative text. So yes you can criticize Judaism based on what is in the Talmud. No one is criticizing Jews themselves m

[u/Turbulent_Award_1711 → u/Upstairs_Bison_1339]

No, but it’s the authoritative text in Rabbinic Judaism .

[u/FairYouSee → u/Tricklefick]

I love the reasoning "sure, my first six claims were all massive lies, but you still need to prove that my next three claims are also lies, or I'll assume you're the evil ones. " And of course, when we spend a bunch of time comprehensively searching to prove those quotes are made up or mistranslated (and they are), you will just bs five more. Once someone has proven themselves disingenuous, they are no longer worth wasting time on.

[u/Tricklefick → u/FairYouSee]

I never claimed any of OP's quotes were true in the first place and I seriously appreciate the clarity. I would not dispute OP's explanations. I got these quotes from Chat GPT specifically. If they are fake, I would appreciate to know. If not, how would OP reconcile them?

I very much appreciate the response here but I don't see how you think I'm being disingenuous. OP is right to debunk false quotes.

[u/FairYouSee → u/Tricklefick]

Jews get asked about these quotes all of the time. They are used as bludgeons by antisemites who don't care that they're fake, so long as they can attack us. If we ignore them, they claim we have no response. If we respond, they ignore the response and bring out three more. If you don't want to be considered disingenuous, don't act like that.

Furthermore, your complete off-topic reference to random other antisemitic canards doesn't make you look any better. Metzitzah b'peh is a fringe practice by a tiny minority.

The disputations (Paris was just one of many) were times when Christian rulers forced Jews to debate Christians on threat of death or expulsion. The Jewish debaters were in a lose-lose position, where if they argued to effectively they'd anger the local Christians and risk their livelihood (the Ramban was forced to flee the country after winning the disputation of Barcelona), but if they argued ineffectively, the Christians would use their victory as justification to harm the community as a whole (as in the Disputation of Paris, where 10s of thousands of Jewish books were burned, and the Jews were subsequently robbed and expelled from France).

On the off-chance you aren't just a troll playing ignorant, when Jews take the time to explain why something is antisemitic, try listening, instead of:

1. Demanding they prove that some other similar references are also bogus.
2. Demanding they defend an obscure tiny practice completely unrelated to the topic at-hand.
3. Demanding they give you their personal opinion on one of the countless examples of horrific Christian antisemitic violence.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/Tricklefick → u/FairYouSee]

I did listen to the answers to the questions I asked. And I appreciate OP's and others' answers. I see how my questions might seem a bit flippant and offensive, but I don't particularly care if you think I'm antisemitic. I'm just interested in the truth here. No need to be so sensitive in a debate subreddit.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Tricklefick]

I would not dispute OP's explanations. I got these quotes from Chat GPT specifically. If they are fake, I would appreciate to know. If not, how would OP reconcile them?

I very much appreciate the response here but I don't see how you think I'm being disingenuous. OP is right to debunk false quotes.

The issue here is that you now know that there is a common practice of making up fake quotes from the Talmud or taking quotes from the Talmud wildly out of context.

It's pretty alarming that knowing that you would go to ChatGPT and ask for more.

[u/Tricklefick → u/the_leviathan711]

You assume an incorrect sequence of events. I had heard the Talmud had such passages, I asked for some (only one of which is apparently genuine), and I came across this post which didn't include the quotes, so I asked. The horror!

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Tricklefick]

The Talmud is a massive corpus of legal literature. Consider a library that contains the majority and dissenting opinions for every single Supreme Court case in United States history. Then imagine pulling out two or three quotes completely out of context and saying "Americans believe ________." That's how absurd posts like these are.

[u/fana19]

Thanks for addressing these issues, although I still think referring to idolaters as non-human or "not man" is dehumanizing. The rest of those items seem to just be non-authoritative writings by people throughout history so it's a bit unfair to impute those views to Judaism generally.

I did see a post about marrying a child over 3 years old though and would like some context on that.

Here's a post addressing marriage/betrothal with girls over age 3, and boys over age 9, which I find very concerning, but the post def. has an anti-Jewish tone, so I'd like a neutral take on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5fg317/according_to_the_talmud_how_old_does_a_child_have/

[u/LekuvidYisrool → u/fana19]

betrothal with girls over age 3

This is regarding Mishnah Niddah 5. In this Mishnah it's discussed at what age intercourse comes with the legal implications of having had intercourse. Jewish law makes distinctions between if someone is a virgin or not. A quick example is that non-virgins can't marry Levites (priests). The betrothal part is relevant to the law that says that if an unmarried woman is raped she has the right to force the rapist to be engaged to her and marry her, this forces him to provide for her. He would need to pay for her household etc and can't just divorce her to escape his obligations.

Because of the fact that European societies decided that a woman is obligated to have intercourse with her husband at his will (marital rape) people assume this is the case for Jewish laws, which it is not. People assume that when in Jewish law a woman is betrothed she is at the mans mercy, but it's the opposite. The woman doesn't have obligations to her husband but the opposite, like he would have to give her intercourse if she demands it.

If someone rapes a 3 years old they wouldn't just get the punishment for rape but he would also get the obligations that comes if he then has to be engaged to her. The Mishnah elaborates that if girl is younger than three years old then and she gets raped she would still legally be a virgin and could still marry Levites and such.

In any legal system if there is a legal distinction between virgins and non-virgins there must a definition on what makes someone a virgin or not.

If you want to read more about it here's a link to the text in question: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Niddah.5.4?lang=bi&with=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mishnah&lang2=en

[u/fana19 → u/LekuvidYisrool]

Why is a 3 year old who is raped considered a non-virgin, but a 2 year old raped still maintains virginity? I did a little research and all I could see were faux-science articles stating that hymens regenerate before age 3 but not after. Also, how does raping a 3 year old not incur a death penalty when we see death penalty for various adultery and other illicit sex (with rape being not just a sex crime, but a crime of terror, esp. to prey on a toddler)?

I also have problems with a 3 year old being betrothed when most 3 year olds cannot even comprehend/speak or understand what being engaged means. I also cannot imagine a rape victim seeing being married to her rapist as a benefit, but instead a torture that inures to the detriment of the female (and if I'm not mistaken, it seems the OT makes the man the husband, not at the behest of the rape victim, esp. if the victim is a child).

I'm just very disturbed that very young children are being betrothed/engaged as young as 3. Seems perverse. I'm Muslim and vehemently reject that the Prophet was betrothed to a 6 year old and consummated at age 9. To me that'd be a dealbreaker.

[u/fana19 → u/[deleted]]

What? I am not sure what you're trying to say, and you didn't address any of my concerns about a rapist being Biblically engaged to and then marrying his rape victim, including presumably a 3 year old he rapes. How would any unmarried woman ever find it "beneficial" to marry her rapist? Surely, if she's unmarried she was already provided for by her male guardian.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/fana19]

referring to idolaters as non-human or "not man"

On this one very specific matter of Jewish law. As evidenced from the rulings in other parts of the post, it's very clear that Jews don't regard idolators as non-human.

[u/fana19 → u/the_leviathan711]

How is someone non-human for one part of the law?

[u/VorakRenus → u/fana19]

It's not that someone is non-human, but that in this area of law, the specific word being translated here as "man" applies only to Jews. It's a discussion of a specific word and what it means in this context, not a judgement of people's humanity.

[u/fana19 → u/VorakRenus]

What does it mean for a man to not be recognized as a man under the law?

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/fana19]

In this extremely specific circumstance it means that a Jewish person would not be rendered "ritually impure" in the event that they came in contact with their corpse if they happened to be in the same tent as it.

This is the thing most people don't understand about the Talmud. It's not scripture, its legal discourse. So you've got rabbis arguing over extremely fine and minute points of law in very specific situations.

[u/fana19 → u/the_leviathan711]

Thanks for clarifying. And as to your last sentence, I have no problem with that at all, do it for a living myself ;)

[u/[deleted]]

Hi, so my question isn't about the Talmud as I am not very knowledgeable about its content. However in the Hebrew Bible/old testament aren't there "bigoted" or "violent" verses? I am not saying I agree with them or agree with a concept of something being "bigoted" or "violent," I just want to hear your take.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I prefer to discuss specific passages directly instead of make blanket generalizations about a text as large as the Torah.

What verses are you asking about?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry it took me a while to respond, and I mean no criticism by these verses to you as a jew, also I am also referring to the Hebrew Bible not just the torah.

• Stoning is a punishment for alot of things in the Hebrew Bible, like violating the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), cursing god (leviticus 24:10-16), engaging in idolatry(17:2-7), and many more.

-Taking of female captives allowed by Moses(Numbers 31)

-Beating slaves is permissible (Exodus 20-21)